Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vampires

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vampires

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a common theme in literature and art. This list contains notable examples. Tarinth 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vampires are a concept that deserves a list. I think the fictional part is almost redundant though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please rename. We are in agreement that all vampires are fictional, I hope? —Chowbok ☠ 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, fwiw. AndyJones 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a list of characters of a widespread and diverse type in a long-standing and continuing genre. Zahir13 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename per User:Chowbok) - encyclopaedic, no reason presented for deletion, suggest closing this AfD early. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.